Why I'll Vote For Wesley Clark

[PSU84]

It is becoming apparent that if former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean wins the Democratic nomination for President, he will be portrayed by Karl Rove & Co. as a draft-dodging gay-marriage loving, northeastern liberal who does not represent “middle America” and who can't be trusted to defend the nation from terrorists. The GOP could not have constructed a more ideal opponent if they had tried.

In contrast, retired Gen. Wesley Clark is a candidate who does not bring to the campaign the kind of “social issues” baggage that can be used against him in Republican attack ads; whose credentials in foreign policy and national security are superior not only to Gov. Dean’s, but to President Bush’s; who is articulate and intelligent, and who has spoken passionately in defense of civil liberties, affirmative action, protecting the environment, extending health care to all Americans, improving education, preserving Social Security and Medicare, reaching out to our allies instead of isolating ourselves from them, and of using force as a last resort rather than as the “easy” way to solve problems abroad.

Nevertheless, much of the press remains obsessed with “gotcha” journalism, and despite his strong performance in national polls, the public hears repeatedly that Gen. Clark’s campaign “has failed to fulfill its early promise.” Take, for example, a recent story in the New York Times (11/25/03) on the Democratic candidates’ debate in Iowa. The reporter’s only comments about Wesley Clark
focused on Gen. Clark’s statements regarding his position on the 2002 Congressional resolution on Iraq. (This topic seems to be almost an obsession of some reporters.) Is the press really doing the voters a service by passing over other issues on which Clark has taken a public stance, or by ignoring his extensive public comments on CNN and elsewhere that invading Iraq, especially without UN support, was unwise? Much more important than this game of “caught-you-in-a-contradiction” is whether a candidate has the experience and character to be President - especially when compared to the incumbent - and what policies he or she advocates for national defense and foreign relations, managing the federal budget, sensibly regulating business and commerce, repairing Social Security and Medicare, and protecting the environment.

A second Bush term could well mean further steps toward privatization of Medicare, possibly converting Medicaid to limited block grants to the states, turning Social Security from the last remaining secure pension for the elderly into savings accounts that would be inadequate for the majority of people, continued lax enforcement of environmental regulations, and further limits on basic civil liberties - as in the grossly misnamed “Patriot Act.” We are in a unique era of history in which the policies of the last 70 years that have done much to reduce poverty, to provide for the elderly and the disabled, to protect air and water from pollution, and to ensure fair access for all to education, employment, and housing are under attack from people whose only concerns seem to be cutting their own taxes, providing fat government contracts to their corporate friends, and pandering to the fears and prejudices of the voting public.

The Bush agenda is one of ruinous tax cuts for the rich, huge subsidies for favored industries (as in the execrable energy bill that was recently before the Senate), the privatization of essential government services, and a reckless, thoughtless, and ultimately futile foreign policy of “going it alone.” The unnecessary war in Iraq brings to mind Gen. Omar Bradley’s criticism of Douglas MacArthur’s plan to carry the Korean War into China in 1951. He said it would be “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, against the wrong enemy.” How apt!

Like many other Americans, I fear for the future of this country under the misguided leadership of the current Administration. I’m putting my hopes in Wesley Clark not just because I believe he is an honorable, honest, and highly capable man who has the best interests of the country at heart, but because I believe he can beat George W. Bush. And right now, defeating President Bush’s bid for re-election is the most important thing that We the People can do “to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, and promote the General Welfare.”

[Racenut20]

1. Welcome Aboard

And I agree with your "Republican's Assesment" of Governor Dean. I think the freepers are doing everything they can to get Dean nominated. Wouldn't surprise me if they were donating looooots of money to his campaign.

I can picture them licking their chops at the thought of running against him.

Think of the first debate:
pRes in his flight suit. Dean in his ski suit.

[Mz Pip]

2. Not just donating

Remember Shrub is running unopposed. Repugs living in states with open primaries can vote for Dean. I heard this is already being discussed as a strategy by the RWers.

It's going to take more than just force of will and wishful thinking to defeat Bush.

MzPip
:dem:

[Gloria]

3. Your thinking mirrors a lot of my own...

Before Clark entered the race, I was very interested in Dean, mostly because he was the first Dem to really open his mouth against Bush! His combative approach really appealed after years of listening to the pink tutus.

Clark seems to be able to be both combative, but with a little less in your face persona. This might wear better over the long term.

However, I think Clark may have hemmed and hawed a bit too long. Not only did Dean's campaign forge ahead, the press has gotten on board and it seems to me Dean is being pushed, almost as a setup because the GOP see him as easy pickins'.

Dean is a fighter, but once the Rove machine goes after him, maybe even worse than what they did to Gore, he may be swamped. With Gore, they undermined his character; with Dean they will try to do that, but I think they'll unload more on his politics and twist everything he says as well as his VT politics.

I'm not very happy about how this is all playing out. Kerry has shot himself in the foot and the press is acting like vultures around the carcass; they're setting up Dean for a fall; and they're either ignoring Clark or going after one statement repeatedly and ignoring his views on other issues.

I think we will get screwed in this primary season and in the pres. election.
I just feel it in my bones....

[carpe diem]

4. if this plays out ...

...the way you describe it, I hope Clark and the Democratic party start preparing for him in 2008...if the country is still recognizeable and we still have something resembling democratic elections

[FrenchieCat]

5. Yes.....this is our last chance

for years. Why would we want to blow it?

With enough of us fighting the media, this man, Wes Clark, will make it.

[DemDogs]

6. If you want a winner AND a Democrat, look to Edwards

I agree with what Rove will do to Dean. He has no chance in the general, and the fanaticism of his supporters actually makes it worse for him, although they would never believe that.

Clark has the best resume a Democratic candidate could have, if you just look at the paper. But he has so many vulnerabilities and he has spent the last couple of months just giving us sneak previews, and when he hasn't, the military men he served with and over have been giving it to us.

Then there is that nasty bit about not really being a Democrat. It shows in lots of ways. Remember that first debate when he said was a Democrat because he was pro-health and pro-abortion. Excuse me?

If the man matched the paper, he'd be awesome, but he doesn't, won't, can't. Is his wife even a Democrat? (Even Bush's wife is a Democrat.)

The man that Rove doesn't want to see on the Democratic side is Edwards. He can match Bush with exactly the voters we need to get AND Bush needs to get.

[AP]

7. As I said in another thread, 41% of Clark's supporters in NH like him

because they think he'll end the war. 0% like him because of his policy positions (vs 38% for Edwards, which far outpaces the other candidates).

If Clark gets the nomination, Bush will pull out of Iraq and 2/5ths of Clarks supporters will lose their reason for supporting him. Since none of them care about his policy positions, I don't see how he could win if that happened.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I like you a lot and listen to what you have to say

with a very open mind all of the time. However, I disagree Clark supporters don't care about his policy positions.

I liked Edwards first even before he announced he was running. I told my husband long ago, Hey that guy might be the next President. I liked his looks and the fact that he was a populist and Southern. But when I listened closely to him speak, after he started running, I just didn't get excited. His delivery was not dynamic and I felt that was an important factor the candidate would need to possess in getting rid of the monster.

Then I decided on Kerry because he had foreign policy experience, been a Senator a long time and had military service under his belt. I have wanted Bush out of office since he squatted in the White House. I felt that Kerry, at the time, had the most Gravitas to get Bush out of there. I wasnt reassured about his Q factor though..but at the time he was still the best candidate.

I also checked out Dean, but didn't much like his style.

When I heard about Clark in June, I was not sure who he was. I had refused to look at the war coverage, and had actually marched in a few demonstrations. So I read up on him and you are right, it was initially the resume that made me write a letter asking him to run. When he decided to run, he had no much on Domestic policy papers, again you are correct. I had to wait knowing that whatever he put out couldn't be garbage or trash. Well I am glad to report that it's been more than satisfactory....his policies are excellent..including his enviromental stance.

So you are right in the point that many supporters of Clark that were with him originally did so because it was evident that if anyone could beat Bush, he could...knowing that 9/11 and the Iraq war would be an issue.

However, many have since joined my rank and the policy papers are just great. His stance on Affirmative Action is a real plus for me as I am of color. But more than that, he really is the whole presidential package that could defeat Bush. And I do think that Edwards compliments him (although I will stop there as I don't mean to offend). But Clark has the gravitas, the moxie and the charisma to beat bush without hesitation. That's the main reason I started supporting him, that's true. But now I support him for more than beating Bush. I think he can really affect change in the way politics are carried out today....and also as a non politician running, he is unique.

I would offer that most Clark supporters are probably the most intense Bush Haters....as that is the primary reason that we support our guy. But to most Democrats, wanting to see Bush replaced should trump policy anything...because if somebody is running that "might" or "maybe" can beat Bush, then the policies would be for naught anyway.

So to conclude, I am pleased to say, that I support my candidate for all of the right reasons and in the appropriate priority placement. First Beat Bush...then can work with congress due to his bipartisan past...and can push the liberal agenda more effectively because it goes against his image...

Clark supporters are fervent because we know that we've got the best deal, and better yet, because we got more than we ever expected.

Hope this wasn't too long.

I don't know if you ever checked out Clark's policies http://clark04.com/issues/

[AP]

11. I like Clark, and I didn't mean that post as a criticism of Clark. And

I never would have made this argument unless I had seen that poll.

The fact is, in NH they asked people why they supported their candidate. 0% said that it was because of position on the issues.

They didn't ask people rank the issues, so, perhaps, issues would have been a close second. But the fact is, LOTS of people have the war as their primary reason for supporting Clark.

It's not a reason to discount Clark. If in fact, issues isn't a close second to ending the war, Clark will need to do some work. If it is a close second, Clark doesnt' have to worry.

[FrenchieCat]

12. But I don't think it's purely the war

As a foreign born person, I can tell you that's its not just the war. If the war ended tomorrow, it wouldn't matter because this was Bush's war and those dead soldiers are not coming back Bush is the father of the endless war on terror, and that by itself would be enough to get him beat. Clark is the only candidate that can position himself in such a manner to make 9/11 a negative issue for Bush. You see that Clark is already beginning to question the whole issue of whether it was Bush's responsibility. In addition the whole PNAC issue is something that Clark is in the best position to expose and explain to the American people. So I think that even without the war in Iraq, that Bush will have a lot of explaining to do come the general election if he is facing Clark. If you haven't seen the open letter from the 9/11 widow....I tell you it's a beaut!

I read it on the board when someone posted it...but it didn't have a link. If I see it with a link, I will try to post it.

[Eurobabe]

15. Polls, schmolls

Talk to the real people in NH like I have done in Keene. Don't believe everything you read.

[KittyWampus]

20. Clark Is To The Left Of All Candidates

except Kucinich.

I like his Domestic Policies just fine thank you.

Perhaps supporters in NH that sited his Foreign Policy creds simply haven't checked into his domestic policy yet.

So far, the only coverage Clark has gotten is about Foreign Policy and the media seems intent on keeping that way.

Not having seen the poll you are referring to and seeing the questions asked and how they were specifically answered please forgive me if I tend to disregard your information.

Also, the first ad that Clark has put up on the air in NH is biographical and does indeed focus on his FP creds.

This may have influenced whatever poll you are referring to.

There will be more ads and he is spending significant time up there stumping.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

8. Bush's wife is a Democrat?

Say what?

[FrenchieCat]

10. I don't know about all that.....

It's news to me.

[JohnKleeb]

14. Some truth to that, growing up she was

[DemDogs]

16. Was a registered Democrat until she married GWB I think

And when she has said anything it has sounded more D than R. That is probably why she doesn't say anything of partisan substance ever.
(She is registered Republican now)

[idlisambar]

13. Play to win

It is becoming apparent that if former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean wins the Democratic nomination for President, he will be portrayed by Karl Rove & Co. as a draft-dodging gay-marriage loving, northeastern liberal who does not represent “middle America” and who can't be trusted to defend the nation from terrorists. The GOP could not have constructed a more ideal opponent if they had tried.

The reason why us Democrats lose is because we are wimps. If we continue to play not to lose by cowering in fear from Republican attack ads, we will just keep losing. Whoever is the nominee, we will match ad for ad, we will rip into the Bush record, and we will get our ideas out. If we neutralize their B.S. and sell our ideas we will win.

Clark, as much as I respect his intelligence and accomplishments, is a play not to lose candidate. That he could come out of nowhere with no political background and very little knowledge of domestic affairs is an admission that we can't win based on our ideas and our values, and the electorate will know it.

Dean is a play to win candidate; he is a strong, charismatic and passionate vehicle of Democratic values and ideas. Clark may beat Bush if nominated, but Dean would crush him and everything he stands for, and get the House back to boot.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Sounds like a personal opinion

based on ?

[idlisambar]

19. just my opinion

I assume you are taking issue with the idea that Clark is a play not to lose candidate while Dean is a play to win candidate. Of course you are right that this is only my opinion.

I already implied why I thought Clark was a play not to lose candidate. His appeal is mostly based on the idea that his uniform will insulate him from charges that he is "weak on defense" and also that he is from the South. To be sure he possesses other good qualities -- he is clearly intelligent and knowledgeable on military affairs, and he is a good-looking and well-spoken guy -- but his uniform is the only thing that really seperates him from the others. Given this, the reason I think Clark is a play not to lose candidate is that if he is nominated it will not be because he is the best candidate, it will be because he is thought to be less vulnerable to Rove's B.S. attacks.

I think it is a mistake to choose a candidate because he/she seems less vulnerable to attacks -- it seems weak because it means that our ideas alone are not sufficient to counter the Republicans on defense. Clark's uniform will count for something initially, but its importance will fade as the war of ideas come to the forefront.

Of course, if one truly believes that Clark is the strongest candidate then that is a different matter, then this argument can be disregarded. On substance, I think Clark is pretty weak on the domestic end, he seems to be channeling his Clinton-era advisors on most issues and that does not appeal to me. His one real strength is his first hand knowledge and experience in military affairs, but to me handling the military is only one part of a foriegn policy picture that includes tackling the challenges of globalization and trade, poverty, health care, and the environment.

Dean is a play to win candidate because his appeal is not based on perceived lack of vulnerabilities, it is based on perceived strenghs. He has superficial vulnerabilities aplenty as everyone knows, but despite these vulnerabilities he is cleaning everyone's clock in the primaries. Why? Yes, his stance on the issues including the war are important, and his domestic agenda is appealing, but mostly it is because he shows more confidence, passion, and drive than his counterparts. You make a mistake if you think this scrappy underdog appeal will not play well in the general election. On top of this he is seen as a straightforward and a genuine guy, and this engenders respect. I knew Dean could win when a while back I heard him as a guest on a conservative talk radio show in Texas and the hosts were showering him with praise for finally standing up to Bush (these were real consevatives, not neo-cons).

The way to beat Bush is through populist appeal, and of the leading candidates Gephardt, Edwards, and especially Dean have figured this out. Clark unfortunately seems to be in Clinton la-la land, and that is why he is not catching on among people who pay attention in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[KittyWampus]

21. WRONG! Clark Is The Only Candidate To Propose Cutting The Pentagon Budget

besides Kucinich. And that is significant.

[idlisambar]

23. good point, but...

Clark has not said he would do anything as dramatic as Kucinich would. I believe he said he would look to cut some fat from the air force budget. Dean has said his approach would not be to cut the overall budget but to shift some funds to first responders, veterans benefits, and other "people-oriented" areas. In reality, I would bet Clark and Dean are basically on the same page here. Also, Dean may not cut the overall defense budget, but being a deficit hawk, he would probably at least hold it steady as the ecnomomy grows and thus decrease real expenditures over time, politically this can be sold better than a "cut".

Clark definitely has an advantage on this front because his uniform lends him credibility. He can propose cuts in wasteful military spending presumably with less political cost to him. The question is whether he uses this advantage to really go after the military-industrial complex like Kucinich does. So far I have not seen it.

[FrenchieCat]

22. You are right, it is your opinion... (warning...long post/valued info)

Mine is much different.

your take: his uniform is the only thing that really seperates him from the others.

my take: Wesley Clark wore the uniform for 34 years...so you can't take it away from him.....as it reflects his life. How can that be done? That's like saying take Dean's Governorship away or his Doctorate degree...then they are the same as others. That's not really logical way of looking at one's life accomplishments IMO.
----------------
your take: he is nominated it will not be because he is the best candidate, it will be because he is thought to be less vulnerable to Rove's B.S. attacks

my take: Minimizing the advantage of the opposition is what it's all about. In politics,like any other "blood" sport, why would you not want to minimize the threat that the opposition might present? That's like saying don't put your best batter in the baseball game, although the bases are loaded. Put the one out there that is eager to bat. Why would you not take the advantage. Again, I don't understand the logic.
----------------
your take:he is clearly intelligent and knowledgeable on military affairs, and he is a good-looking and well-spoken guy

my take: How is that not a good thing when you are trying to win? I don't understand how all of Clark's advantages in your eyes are disavantages...unless you like rooting for the underdog and like losing. This is an important election, you know. Why one would not want to put his best batter on the field with bases loaded is beyond me.
-----------------------

your take:I think it is a mistake to choose a candidate because he/she seems less vulnerable to attacks -- it seems weak because it means that our ideas alone are not sufficient to counter the Republicans on defense. Clark's uniform will count for something initially, but its importance will fade as the war of ideas come to the forefront.

my take: I guess you are saying that Clark is an empty uniform. Unfortunately, that is not the case at all. The uniform represents fighting in a war, leading a war, winning a war, negotiating peace, diplomatically managing various sides (19 Nato Countries & a asshole pentagon that was actually against Clark the entire time), and managing armed service members and their civilian families overseas including their children, administering to their needs as well. In addition, Clark was known as a Turn-around unit manager, meaning he took low moral units that were problematic and turned them around. He did this time after time. that's what he was known for. Beyond that if you read either of his books (that he wrote himself) he is a fantastic strategist.

Futher he wrote parts of the amicaes brief from the army for the Affirmative Action case to the Supreme court earlier this year. Since you have a MLK Avitar, I am surprised that this would not be an issue for you (considering that Dean's stance on this issue is lacking). I don't have an Avatar that conocts an historical figure, but I am a person of color.
-----------------
Actually, I could go one, but I am tired at the moment. I don't know how you sell your candidate, but you only sold me mine in the contents of what you wrote. Maybe you need to read up on Clark's policies...because maybe, you're not certain why you think that Dean can beat Bush. Because he's a fighter? Like what has he done to make him a fighter to the extent that you think he can win against the Juntas? Money, organization and current (cause it may not last) good press is not enough to win this election. The candidate we choose must be able to neutralize the Republican "TRUMP" card. And as you point out, that is exactly what Wes Clark can do. On National security at home and abroad, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq. Don't underestimate a Rhode Scholar who finished 1st in his class at West Point, who speaks 4 languages (Russian, French, Spanish & English) and has a masters from Oxford, England. Someone who rose through the ranks despite jealousy and pettyness being heaped on him. Someone who received 4 bullets in Vietnam and stayed in the Army anyway. Someone who taught himself how to play the piano.....

Actually if you really took a close look at Clark, you would see a very complex and fascinating multi-facet Individual, not an empty uniform. And don't forget that he reads 3 books per week....and can run circles in the discussion of economics (which he taught at West Point), philosophy and science with the brightest minds.

Clinton didn't call him the only other star (apart from Hillary)in the Democratic party for nothing.

if you want some information about him, just leave me a message and I will provide some. Not promoting that you should switch, but it appears that you don't really know what Clark is all about. What we do both know is how important it is to know all of the candidates, and not just have a fleeting impression. This is just too serious.

[idlisambar]

24. I wasn't clear

I don't think Clark is an empty uniform at all. I have tremendous respect for him. He has led an exemplary military career by all accounts, and is a fascinating individual as you say. I have been following Clark for a while and I think I have a good idea of his strengths and weaknesses. I respect that you think highly of Clark and don't mean to disparage him, but I don't agree that his qualifications set him apart. Why? We have 8 other individuals in this race who bring their own record of accomplishments to the table and I am just as impressed with many of them as I am with Clark. Dean deserves respect for being a doctor, an expert on health care, and an accomplished Governor. Gephardt deserves respect for being an experienced legislator and an unwavering advocate of labor. Kerry has been fighting the good fight as an anti-war activist and politician for over 3 decades. And so on...

The reason I do not value Clark's supposed reduced vulnerability due to his uniform is that Rove-like attacks are only really useful when the other guy doesn't have the money to respond, Rove is counting on this. As evidence, look how effective the attacks on Dean have been so far. We'll have the money this time, and a guy who can dish it back.

It is great that Clark believes in affirmative action, but this again does not seperate him from anyone including Dean. MLK is my avator because he was powerful advocate of social and economic justice, the most important this country has seen. Affirmative action is an issue for me but it is only the tip of the iceberg -- I want economic justice. Affirmative action has been shown to be to little, to late to correct the legacies of racial injustice on its own. We must even the playing field as much as possible from the beginning. What I believe we need for a start is what Governor Dean did successfully in Vermont -- invest heavily in small children.

[PSU84]

18. Clark is a fighter....

...in fact, he is a warrior. He does NOT play "not to lose."

I have no doubt that Gov. Dean would respond to GOP attacks with fire and conviction - and that it would not change the outcome.

There is just no plausible way that Dean can win enough states to capture 270 electoral votes. That Dean is indeed a moderate will be overshadowed by the fact he is from the most liberal state in the Union and signed the nation's first civil-union law. His lack of military and foreign policy experience make him the wrong candidate for an election where national security will be a top issue.

I have nothing against Gov. Dean. But I believe we MUST defeat Bush in 2004 or this country will suffer greatly for decades as a result of their agenda. We must nominate a candidate who voters will see as committed to national security and who isn't going to bring Vermont-style social liberalism to the White House. We've got to win the middle-class middle-western voter and the tough-on-national-defense voters in the border states, or Bush will win. We just can't let that happen.

[democratreformed]

25. I will vote for Wesley Clark

because I believe that he is the best candidate for the job. That is my right and I will exercise it.

[Upfront]

26. Why I won't

Dean was my choice from the 1st time I heard him speak. Clark is not in his leauge in that area. Clark could be my 2nd choice, but I still have some doubts about who owns him, if any one. In Deans case, the people own him. I think that our nation needs to bust free of big money buying polital control. Clark seems to be another candidate who may be indept to big money.

[PSU84]

27. Clark was making big money as an investment banker.

He gave up a lot to run for President. No matter what happens, he'll continue to make a very good living, but to suggest that he is in this for the money is truly absurd.

[Rose Siding]

28. He was a corporate lobbyist for the CAPS II program

The contacts made by a US pres are invaluable especially when you figure in the ablility to craft policy favorable to those contacts.

[thentro]

29. I will vote for Clark

because he is one of the most complex, thoughtful people I have ever heard. I have watched all the Dean TV, and read his speeches and policy, and soon the whole book (not just parts). Clark has a way of speaking that is calm, powerful, direct, and hopeful. I see in him a leader that will move the nation, not just my self or my friends (ie "you have the power") into action. He is a fixer and a thinker. I want my president to have a depth in world knowledge and a philosophy that drives his agenda inside America and globally, because they are increasingly becoming the same thing. Clark said "If you can do good, you should" And this means stopping the killing in Rwanda (blocked by pentagon) or saving Albanians (successful).
In his "100 year vision", Clark writes...
"Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment."
(more at http://clark04.com/vision/)
We need this kind of long range philosophy as a rudder to guide us through rough waters.

I will admit, I think its kind of funny when I hear dean people say that Clarkies are all mindless followers of Clark, because in a way for me it is true. I really believe in what clark says, and I am not one to be easily swayed by others opinions. But wow, I want to study with this man! He gives me hope!
Dean says, 'I will fight harder in this game than any one else, so vote for me.' But the game has been rigged, he can not win because he didn't write the rules. I believe Clark can break out of same old game because of who he is, a great thinker, leader, and man. His plan after the military was to make $40 million and become a philanthropist. He is running for president instead. I will do all I can to get him there.